Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Damage3245]

@Arcker123; his report was in no way valid. In case you were unaware, I was already warned for what happened in that thread and the issue is resolved. If you want to criticize me or my opinions then fine, whatever, but this thread isn't the place to do it and making a post targeting towards specific staff members is harassment. Go discuss it elsewhere.

Any further posts on this will be deleted. You've made your protest, now wait for DDM or Antvasima to make a response.

 

[Arcker123]

@Arcker123; his report was in no way valid. If you want to criticize me or my opinions then fine, whatever, but this thread isn't the place to do it and making a post targeting towards specific staff members is harassment. Go discuss it elsewhere.

Any further posts on this will be deleted. You've made your protest, now wait for DDM or Antvasima to make a response.

You said a whole lot of nothing and basically conceded to my point roflmao.

Hellsing provided reasoning for the report, and just went about it in the wrong way. This thread is the place to discuss it, when he was not only banned unfairly, but this is where he should have made his report.

And this transparent attempt to shut down this discussion because you’re losing is hilarious. Hellsing was banned half an hour after being reported at 3 AM with no proper ability to respond, and now when he actually receives defence you’re running away? Embarrassing.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I banned him not so much for the thread in question, but because I was told that he is deliberately trying to incite drama through psy-ops, if I remember correctly, which is blatant destructive trolling.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

The reason it is harassment is not only because he quoted some past argument, but literally laughed at his face and the thread he made was literally attempting to force an Admin to be demoted/removed from the wiki.

Also, do not strawman the actual context. It isn't "Disagreeing with a popular verses's tier no matter how blatant" is the part that's trolling. He also literally self admitted it was his full intent to cause flame wars and provoke people. Which a motive to "Intentionally provoke an entire fanbase" is literally the definition of trolling.

Anyway, he was already permabanned but Antvasima.

 

[Damage3245]

@Arcker123; this isn't a debate, I don't have to concede anything. In the first place reports against staff members have to be made to HR, not to this thread.

In the second place, I was already reported for this issue and was warned about it.

 

[Arcker123]

@Arcker123; this isn't a debate, I don't have to concede anything

Holy shit. Do you think you need to be in a debate to concede (agree) to something.

In the first place reports against staff members have to be made to HR, not to this thread.

I don’t understand how you could think that such a minor mishap in a report like this (Knowing this specific rule) is ban worthy. I already admitted he could’ve reported it better.

Well, I banned him not so much for the thread in question, but because I was told that he is deliberately trying to incite drama through psy-ops, if I remember correctly, which is blatant destructive trolling.

He didn’t say that at all. He just said he “wanted to see the reaction when DB fans realise the characters aren’t 3-A.” That’s not a destructive comment at all, he’s just saying that he wants to see the reactions when he proves DB isn’t universal. Having an opinion that differs isn’t necessarily ban worthy, nor is that comment. Hell, that statement proves he honestly thinks the verse isn’t 3-A. You’re over dramatising a very tame statement to justify blatant mod abuse.

Also, do not strawman the actual context. It isn't "Disagreeing with a popular verses's tier no matter how blatant" is the part that's trolling. He also literally self admitted it was his full intent to cause flame wars and provoke people. Which a motive to "Intentionally provoke an entire fanbase" is literally the definition of trolling.

He didn’t say that at all though? At least not in the way you’re implying. Hellsing honestly believes what he’s saying, he just made a cocky statement about the reactions he got. This isn’t as serious you’re trying to pretend it is.

 

[Damage3245]

@Arcker123; you're ignoring that he first posted about it on my message wall, trying to get a reaction out of me. Something he wouldn't do if his intention was just to report me for some perceived rule breaking. When that attempt failed as I wouldn't give him the reaction he was after, he posted a general thread about it to stir up drama.

 

[Antvasima]

He didn’t say that at all. He just said he “wanted to see the reaction when DB fans realise the characters aren’t 3-A.” That’s not a destructive comment at all, he’s just saying that he wants to see the reactions when he proves DB isn’t universal. Having an opinion that differs isn’t necessarily ban worthy, nor is that comment. Hell, that statement proves he honestly thinks the verse isn’t 3-A. You’re over dramatising a very tame statement to justify blatant mod abuse.

Eh? I was told that he deliberately instigates conflict and drama, and the linked attack thread against Damage3245 fit with that claim. That is all. It was not intended to be abusive. I tend to try to be lenient toward productive members. I just don't care about allowing ones that are almost only here in order to deliberately cause problems to stay.

 

[Arcker123]

It's pretty funny how Ant, a couple days ago, went out of his way to defend the unbanning of a guy who made blatant transphobic comments and made sock accounts to circumvent that ban, on the basis that "He didn't get the chance to defend himself, and, he was just speking his own opinions," but is now defending the perma banning of a guy, who by any reasonable account, had offenses blatantly less severe than DarthSpiderrs. Not extending the courtesy of "Left-Libertarian freedom of speech," to Hellsing, who was just going about a report in a really bad way and had "bad" opinions about DB just screams hypocrisy and mod abuse.

you're ignoring that he first posted about it on my message wall, trying to get a reaction out of me. Something he wouldn't do if his intention was just to report me for some perceived rule breaking. When that attempt failed as I wouldn't give him the reaction he was after, he posted a general thread about it to stir up drama.

1. What exactly is the problem with trying to contact someone you're reporting
2. Not a rebuttal to the content of the report, nor does this actually prove trolling, he still made a legitimate attempt to explain why he thought this was rule breaking.

Eh? I was told that he deliberately instigates conflict and drama, and the linked attack thread against Damage3245 fit with that claim. That is all. It was not intended to be abusive. I tend to try to be lenient toward productive members. I just don't care about allowing ones that are almost only here in order to deliberately cause problems to stay.

You do realize that you perma ban'd someone without A. Letting him speak up in defense of himself, and B. Even looking into the content of context of the report for yourself, instead just going off the baseless opinions of other mods.

I think the ban is excessive and abusive. His offenses aren't nearly good enough for a perma ban, and the fact no mod has stood up to let him defend himself is abusive. You're behavior is also irrational and hypocritical.

 

[Damage3245]

@Arcker123; the content of the report requires no rebuttal. It is a dead topic that is over and done with; another staff member warned me of it, and I acknowledged that I would preface such statements by making it clear that it is just my opinion in the future. There is no rule being broken here.

I didn't see a single legitimate explanation from him that would explain which rule he thought I was breaking.

His ban is fine; the user attempted to troll a staff member and tried to get a staff member demoted unfairly. We don't have a high amount of tolerance for users who are just here to stir up drama.

 

[Arcker123]

the content of the report requires no rebuttal. It is a dead topic that is over and done with; another staff member warned me of it, and I acknowledged that I would preface such statements by making it clear that it is just my opinion in the future. There is no rule being broken here.

Everyone notice how this is completely irrelevant to the discussion. IDRC if it was declared previously that you weren't breaking rules, that's not what this discussion is about. It's not rule breaking to make a report (That he likely hasn't seen) twice. Stop dodging.

I didn't see a single legitimate explanation from him that would explain which rule he thought I was breaking.

Irrelevant. He still legitimately believed there was violation, and gave non trolling arguments for it. That alone debunks the reasoning for his ban.

His ban is fine; the user attempted to troll a staff member and tried to get a staff member demoted unfairly.

Damage is trying really hard to pretend he's a victim. "Oh poor me, I got reported because of my bad behavior and statements, boo hooo." This is super corny. You're heavily exaggerating, if not making up the "trolling." He actually believed staff was breaking rules so he reported it, in a poor way sure. This is not ban worthy, stop being a baby.

We don't have a high amount of tolerance for users who are just here to stir up drama.

You can't prove this.

 

[Damage3245]

@Arcker123; at this point now you're the one being deliberately antagonistic on this thread for no reason.

I've given my response and will drop the topic now. This is just filling the RVR thread up pointlessly.

 

[Arcker123]

@Arcker123; at this point now you're the one being deliberately antagonistic on this thread for no reason.

This is the verbatim the exact problem that Amelia pointed out when she left lmao.

When you call out a high ranking mod for mod abuse and poor behavior, they will do the following

• Play victim: If you're the slightest bit emotional, or just beating them up really hard, they will cry, ignore the argument, and pretend you're the bad guy and shift the discussion back on to you instead of responding. If they're really pressed, they will do everything in their power to pretend a rule was violated and enforce a punishment.

Damage, you know damn well why I'm doing this. Stop trying to make people feel bad for you and playing dumb. This is why engaging with staff can be so frustrating. The mod abuse displayed in thew banning of Hellsing is disgusting, and the defenses and outright dishonesty for them are so bad it's hilarious.

I've given my response and will drop the topic now. This is just filling the RVR thread up pointlessly.

Discussion of Mod abuse isn't a bad thing for RVR. Stop trying to pretend this is a bad discussion.

 

[Antvasima]

Arcker123; at this point now you're the one being deliberately antagonistic on this thread for no reason.

Yes, and I am sincere in my left-libertarian belief system, even if my sense of judgement is not always very good, and it isn't possible to be completely consistent in everything one does. I for one am far too stray-minded for that.

Also, I supported DarthSpiderr being banned. At the time I just thought that it would be dangerous to make said ban too strict, as this might be perceived as politically-motivated oppression, and give rise to grudges that greatly increase bigoted tendencies rather than diminish them, combined with that he was a longtime productive member. However, this is a forum, not our increasingly fracturing and partisan society as a whole, so I likely made a mistake.

In comparison, I do think that new members who are blatantly only here to troll and cause problems should be banned. However, it is possible that I misunderstood this situation.

 

[Damage3245]

Play victim: If you're the slightest bit emotional, or just beating them up really hard, they will cry, ignore the argument, and pretend you're the bad guy and shift the discussion back on to you instead of responding.

That is awfully convenient for you, is it not, that you can dismiss any counter-protest as just the accused person "playing victim"?

 

[Antvasima]

This is the verbatim the exact problem that Amelia pointed out when she left lmao.

Amelia has a history of deliberately trying to cause as much damage as possible with unfair and untrue accusations in her various farewell messages or other public drama attacks, and now you seem to deliberately try to be toxic and cause drama as well.

 

[Antvasima]

That is awfully convenient for you, is it not, that you can dismiss any counter-protest as just the accused person "playing victim"?

Agreed. People do have the right to defend themselves from attacks based on false information without "playing victim", which is usually just rhetorical manipulation in order to shut them up and cause others to not listen to their arguments.

 

[LordGinSama]

I'm really failing to understand how this is grounds for a permanent ban, it's not really targeted harassment of any sort (That term is seriously ******* used much too often by those who don't even know the actual meaning.) off-site offenses are not grounds for bans, let alone a permanent ban.


After all, if that were the case a large majority of users, including staff would be banned several times over.


Drop the "harassment." argument, because that aint it chief.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I suppose that we could significantly diminish the ban period to around one month or two if the attack thread against Damage3245 was all that the just banned member did. I thought that he had admitted to being here to run destructive psy-ops and had been a problem previously as well.

 

[Arcker123]

That is awfully convenient for you, is it not, that you can dismiss any counter-protest as just the accused person "playing victim"?

Me when I don’t have an argument. I’ve already provided justification as to why you’re playing victim, maybe respond to that before bloviating.

@Antvasima seems like any issue I had with you has been compromised

 

[LordGinSama]

Also Damage if you could stop replying like you said you would forever ago. At this point it's only looking like your replying to Arcker to fuel the fire further, it isn't very becoming behavior for an Administrator to backtrack on his own words.

1: It's unprofessional.

2: If your innocent and you know your innocent leave it at that, no need to defend yourself to the point where it seems like you have a guilty conscious.

 

[Agnaa]

Did anyone consider just telling the person that Damage was already reported and warned for that? If they continue on making more threads about it then, sure, ban 'em, but like, you don't need an insta-perma.

I think that'd be a better way to approach situations like this in the future.

 

[Damage3245]

Also Damage if you could stop replying like you said you would forever ago. At this point it's only looking like your replying to Arcker to fuel the fire further, it isn't very becoming behavior for an Administrator to backtrack on his own words.

I shall endeavor to do so. Sometimes there are just things posted that I can't let go by without comment despite trying to drop the overall topic.

My last few posts haven't been defending my innocence; just responding to specific points.

 

[Damage3245]

Did anyone consider just telling the person that Damage was already reported and warned for that? If they continue on making more threads about it then, sure, ban 'em, but like, you don't need an insta-perma.

I think that'd be a better way to approach situations like this in the future.

Going by DDM's report, the ban wasn't only for what he posted about me, but about him targeting Dragon Ball fans.

 

[LordGinSama]

Amelia has a history of deliberately trying to cause as much damage as possible with unfair and untrue accusations in her various farewell messages or other public drama attacks, and now you seem to deliberately try to be toxic and cause drama as well.

Can we not...? Like seriously, they just left and to be frank some of what they said is true, by no means is everything they said true, especially with the political aspect which I won't even go into but you do indeed have staff members who intentionally abuse their own authority and are given nigh Immunity to punishment for the same offenses anyone else would make on the basis of them being quote on quote "productive."


Bad apples exist in every group, to act like this isn't applicable in this sight whenever it's clear to most users is pretty ignorant.

 

[Agnaa]

And if all he said was "wanted to see the reaction when DB fans realise the characters aren’t 3-A." that's something that's more deserving of a warning, imo. It's slightly mocking a broad group, while still promoting something he actually believes.

 

[Antvasima]

I will remove his ban for the time being then. I thought that he had outright admitted to running psy-ops.

Should we only give him a strict warning or combine it with a brief ban?

 

[Damage3245]

@Antvasima; I'll leave it up to you and DDM. I'm afraid any further input from me will be seen as bias.

 

[Antvasima]

What do you think, @DarkDragonMedeus ?

 

[Antvasima]

@Antvasima; I'll leave it up to you and DDM. I'm afraid any further input from me will be seen as bias.

I am sorry to hear that.

 

[Agnaa]

Just a warning & explanation imo, we should hopefully find out pretty quickly whether a short-ish ban is needed.

 

[Antvasima]

The reason it is harassment is not only because he quoted some past argument, but literally laughed at his face and the thread he made was literally attempting to force an Admin to be demoted/removed from the wiki.

Also, do not strawman the actual context. It isn't "Disagreeing with a popular verses's tier no matter how blatant" is the part that's trolling. He also literally self admitted it was his full intent to cause flame wars and provoke people. Which a motive to "Intentionally provoke an entire fanbase" is literally the definition of trolling.

What do other staff members here think about this?

 

[Crabwhale]

I'll have to agree that permanently banning the guy right off the bat is a bit excessive. Serious warning? Sure. Instructions provided on how to actually proceed in a situation where he thinks staff have done wrong? Obviously.

But a ban like this makes us look reactionary and stuck up, and personally I'd rather not deal with more "staff bad lolmao" sentiment than we already get.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Is some staff member here willing to give him a proper serious warning then?

 

[Agnaa]

I've left a warning/advisory post. If it's not serious enough, feel free to add to it yourself.

 

[Antvasima]

It seems fine to me.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

I agree with a semi-long ban, as well as a stern warning that any further similar activity will result in hefty punishment.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I still think he should be banned for 3 months at bare minimum, maybe even 6 months to a year. The video uploaded on YouTube shorts is still igniting public drama. If it was some private Discord post on a private discord server, it be a different story as long as it was kept private. But it was both uploaded publicly and a thread was made about it with the full intention of deliberately attacking Damage. SuperBearNeo was banned for less offensive videos and at least some of his videos have some legit criticisms and as well as some nice things to say to other staff members.

And again, we literally have discussion rules about making Dragon Ball revisions without new info which his evidence was not only weak, his snarky/provocative attitude still cannot go unpunished. That's literally what a Psy Ops is making a controversial posts with the full intention to see how big of an uproar it can cause. And as for "Other people including staff and former staff have done the same thing". Those aren't really good defenses as it just tells me some of those people shouldn't go unpunished let alone have been staff in the first place.

 

[Agnaa]

Could you DM me the video? Because from the description of it, it sounds like something I remember seeing posted on tiktok months ago.

I'd also like to investigate whether Hellsing actually uploaded it to YouTube or just linked to it.

Is making a Dragon Ball thread without new info really something that should result in a 3 month ban on first offence? Same with making a snarky comment aimed at a vague, large group of people.

 

[Confluctor]

Just linked it, btw. Hellsing didn't upload it himself. But that video has been re-uploaded by tons of people across various platforms. TikTok, YT, Insta, etc